Hi,
A lot, but not all… Small woodland blocks have been added in my local area by a previous editor and I’m not sure they add anything to the map and definately don’t add anything to navigation and I would like to remove them but don’t want to tread on any toes. The editor hasn’t been active for 1487 days.
Screenshot added.(unavailable attachment: map.png)
An example is: ID: 233898540.-1956047427.1947949
Is it ok if I remove them?
Thanks,
Heds
I wouldn’t recommend deleting them. The guidance for mapping forests is here:
https://wazeopedia.waze.com/wiki/UnitedKingdom/Places#Natural_Features
Although you might never navigate to a random woodland, they do (IMO) benefit the visual appearance of the map.
However I have seen small clumps of trees on the map which are perhaps planted to make a junction look better or reduce noise
These just clutter the map IMHO
However woods and forests that people might visit or walk in etc., should be there.
That is my view - otherwise does two trees together need mapping - where do you start?
Yeah I see what you mean on closer inspection. Some of them are quite small, and I guess the editor who made them only had a limited area to work with as there are much bigger forests that aren’t mapped nearby, so its a bit localised.
Its similar in my area in Lincolnshire, but there the forests are consistently mapped over a large area, so it doesn’t look out of place and adds to the map I think:
https://waze.com/en-GB/editor?env=row&lat=53.13196&lon=-0.65394&marker=true&s=21059600383&zoomLevel=13
Generally speaking, they don’t add a lot of value and can add a lot of unnecessary clutter.
The primary reason for adding any place to the Waze map should be to assist people in navigating to it. If it has no name, or it’s in the middle of nowhere with no access roads, or it’s only a few trees, then it’s just cluttering up the map. Worse than that, it would take many editors putting in a lot of effort over a long time to add enough to get the UK map to anywhere near a consistent mapping. As it is now, different parts of the country are wildly inconsistent - with a few areas massively overmapped and most not mapped at all.
If a road goes through mostly empty space and occasionally passes through or alongside a wooded area, then it can add benefit to give an indication of progress and improve “confidence” in the map. It makes it more apparent that the map is updated to be “aware” of what’s around. But mapping all the greenery on a road through a forest or along a motorway that has tree planting along it’s edge for miles is as useless as nothing. Driving for 20 minutes through a sea of green or sea of white tells a driver nothing.
Generally speaking, if it has a name and access by mapped road, it could be worth mapping. Otherwise, you’re really just cluttering the map.
I do understand that mapping forests/groves is something that is accessible to all new editors, when road segments might be locked. But creating an area place credits you with one single edit. That might take you 100 clicks for a complex shape and new editors often won’t be aware that massive amounts of detail are removed in translating that shape into the app. It’s a lot of effort that could probably accomplish more useful things elsewhere. 
On a recent drive to Cornwall, one thing that really bugged me was all the random “Farms” that had been mapped. It made me want to turn off the app and switch to Google Maps.
E.g. https://waze.com/en-GB/editor?env=row&lat=50.24527&lon=-4.84636&marker=true&s=21059600383&zoomLevel=13
As per the Wiki guidence, farms should not be mapped as Area places. They should be point places. So by all means, covert them, and move them to the farm house and navigation point to the access road.
Indeed I have converted them to point places, but only the ones that I can in my driving area. If you zoom out its fairly obvious where I was driving in Cornwall :mrgreen:
I don’t usually like to do this, if someone has gone to the effort of mapping an area place I feel bad turning it into a point…but I make an exception here.
v
I’ve converted the rest.
Thanks for the clarification. So in the area I highlighted, am I ok to remove the forest areas that don’t add anything to navigation and progress and/or can’t be navigated to?
Yes. 
Just reigniting this thread for a closely-related question!
I’ve been doing a bit of tidying around my managed area, removing lots of “forest/wood” places which have been over-zealoously added in the past covering every single little clump of trees, no matter how small or how distant from the road, and which were cluttering the map.
The question is - does the same criteria apply to “sea/lake/pool”? Again, there’s a lot of ‘map clutter’ (added mainly by the same editor, it seems!) made up of places mapping all sorts of tiny little ponds and pools which are of zero navigational value.
To clarify - anything which has a name, an entry point, or is possibly useful as a point of reference to passing Wazers I’m leaving in place - it’s just the useless clutter that I’m looking at deleting.
I agree with this. A water place point needs to have a use, either as a possible destination or as a useful map feature such as having a bridge, or passing close to visible water.
Otherwise remove it.
Thanks for clarification on that, Ian. Will press ahead with this.